Also, for blood glucose, which diabetics need to monitor closely, there is some buzz now around spectrographic (IR/UV) techniques, meaning you don't even have to puncture the skin. That would be huge.
It would be huge, yes. But it has been "five years away from being available" for about 25 years. Glucose has a much smaller signal than the Hb / HbO2 signal used for pulse oximetry.
Diabetics actually complain more about fingerprick tests for glucose than about insulin injections, which sounds very counter-intuitive to non-diabetics.
Most non-diabetics think that "injecting insulin" involves hitting a vein. That would be far more painful. Instead, we inject into subcutaneous tissue; and the needles we use are absolutely tiny. It's worth noting that it's very unusual to get any bleeding from an injection site.
It would be huge, yes. But it has been "five years away from being available" for about 25 years. Glucose has a much smaller signal than the Hb / HbO2 signal used for pulse oximetry.
Diabetics actually complain more about fingerprick tests for glucose than about insulin injections, which sounds very counter-intuitive to non-diabetics.
Most non-diabetics think that "injecting insulin" involves hitting a vein. That would be far more painful. Instead, we inject into subcutaneous tissue; and the needles we use are absolutely tiny. It's worth noting that it's very unusual to get any bleeding from an injection site.